MS. PERINO: Hello. Just a couple of announcements, and then we can
take your questions.

The President is currently meeting with the members of the Commission on
Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.
This meeting gives the President the opportunity to talk to the
commission about their findings and to share with them more about what
he thinks about what's happened over the past seven and a half years.

Also, a scheduling announcement for you. On Monday, the President will
visit the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Virginia. The
visit is similar to the ones the President has done at the CIA and at
the State Department and the National Security Agency. It's a chance
for the President to be briefed by officials there and receive updates
on work being done at NCTC. He will also thank them for all of the hard
work that they've done to keep America safe. So that will be on Monday.
I don't have a time for you here, but we'll get it for you on the week
ahead.

Anybody have questions? (Laughter.)

Q Of course we do. Now that the automakers have submitted plans for
their futures and are about to talk to Congress, can you talk about what
the administration thinks of those plans, if it -- if they seem to pave
the way toward viable companies that deserve federal help?

MS. PERINO: It's a little too early to say. We just got the summaries
of those plans yesterday, and officials here are poring over them, as
they are at the Treasury Department and the Commerce Department.
There's a lot that goes into this and a lot is at stake, when you're
talking about possibly putting taxpayer dollars towards any of these
companies.

Secretaries Gutierrez and Bodman sent a letter last week to Congress
that outlined our position on viability. That is the linchpin of where
our support would lie. And we have put forward a plan, through the
section 136 program at the Energy Department, which we think could get
bipartisan support and be able to help the auto industry.

So we're going to be paying very close attention to the testimony that
will take place Thursday and Friday up on Capitol Hill from the
automakers, and then hopefully we'll have more to say after that.

Q So you think that a determination of how serious they are and how
good those plans are sort of depends on what they say tomorrow --

MS. PERINO: No, not necessarily. I think that their testimony is going
to be important, but what's even more important are the plans that
they've provided. But since we just got the summaries yesterday we're
starting to pore through them now.

We had a test that we had laid out, through the 136 program, on what
viability would mean. We can talk about a variety of those things, like
the labor cost, management cost, the legacy cost, the debt structure --
that's a very important piece of this. We want to make sure that a
company is viable so that if the American taxpayers help the automakers
now that they don't have to again try to help them in six months because
the plans didn't work.

So that's what we'll be looking at. But we just need a little bit more
time to pore through those documents.

Matt.

Q The automakers' funding request, in their just-presented plans,
totaled $34 billion in loans and credit lines, and that would be above
and beyond the $25 billion in the Energy Department technology
improvement funds that were already appropriated by Congress. That's
quite a big sum over and above what the White House has shown a
willingness to agree to or to support.

MS. PERINO: Good point, right.

Q What's your -- what's the White House --

MS. PERINO: Well, that's a good point, and we'll have to -- again,
we're going to have to look at the plans and see what may or may not be
able to be supported by us for those companies as they move forward.

We have said that we want to try to help the automakers, and we've put
forward a plan that we think that can get bipartisan support. But we
need to look at each of them and see if what we would be able to support
could actually be a good investment for the taxpayers, and we just don't
know that yet.

Q But you had said yesterday that $25 billion sounded -- the
technology funds alone sounded pretty generous.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that to the American people, that giving $25
billion in taxpayer dollars to a specific industry is generous. But
these are very serious times, and I'm sure the companies have spent a
lot of time thinking through what they think they will need. And we'll
have to wait and see what their plans say. Give us a chance to look
through them. Let's see what they have to say tomorrow, and let's see
what kind of support they can get on Capitol Hill tomorrow, as well. I
think that remains a little bit of a mystery.

Go ahead.

Q Dana, it sounds to me like you're not ruling out more than $25
billion for the automakers. Is that correct?

MS. PERINO: I'm saying I'm not ruling anything out. I think that we
need to see their plans --

Q You say you're not ruling anything out.

MS. PERINO: I'm not ruling anything in or out. I think that we just
need -- it's too early -- let us have a chance to look at their plans
and let them have their chance to testify, and let's see what support it
can get on Capitol Hill.

Q Isn't that a movement from previously? I mean, you were pretty
firm on no more than $25 billion previously allocated money, that was
it. It sounds like now you're saying you might go over that.

MS. PERINO: Well, I don't recall ever being asked a question if we
would actually do more than $25 billion. The debate that we were having
over the past few weeks as we laid -- put forward our plan was that we
thought that the money that had already been appropriated for the auto
industry should be used for the auto industry, and all that Congress
would need to do was amend the 136 program and allow those funds to be
used now rather than just for the specific costs that they were -- or
the specific issues that they were going to be allowed to use.

I don't remember being asked if we would do more than $25 billion, and I
didn't say.

Q Well, as I remember it, I think you were pretty clear, and I know
that Gutierrez was clear, that the administration opposes more than $25
billion. Is that still true?

MS. PERINO: I don't remember saying that. We can go back and check the
record --

Q I know Gutierrez said that, and you've certainly suggested that.

MS. PERINO: Well, let us take a look at what these companies are going
to put forward. And I don't remember any of the companies suggesting
that they needed more than $25 billion over the past three weeks.

Q Well, now, if there was money to come from somewhere else, could it
come possibly from the TARP or would there need to be some new
allocation?

MS. PERINO: We need to look at their plans. We need to let them
testify. And we think that Congress should take a look at the
bipartisan way forward that we put to them, which was to use the money
that they've already allocated for it. We think that would be the best
and appropriate use of that money.

Q May I ask one final -- I'm sorry. You've emphasized repeatedly
that they need to show a plan for recovery. One way that a lot of
economists thinks this -- that this is achievable is if they go into
bankruptcy and they will be forced to restructure. Does the White House
have any sympathy for the idea of these -- of the automakers going into
bankruptcy? Would that be potentially a good idea?

MS. PERINO: We don't want companies to go insolvent; that has been our
position. But we do know that there are some companies do fail. And
that's the way that our system works. But we also recognize the
intricacies of this industry and how many people it could affect. We
have said that we'd be willing to help the automakers. That's already a
step beyond what the President's instincts naturally would be in a free
market economy.

But we are in unprecedented times, and there's really no road map to
follow for the situation that we're in. So we're going to take a look
at their plans. Our experts are looking at them. We're going to let
them testify, and then we'll be able to come back.

But I think it's really important to see what kind of support this can
get on Capitol Hill because if they can't get support on Capitol Hill,
that will put -- that will make the taxpayers think about whether or not
it would be worth giving them money now to try to help them. Because,
as I said, we want them -- these companies to be viable, we want them to
be able to survive over the long term, but in order to do that, they're
going to have to make some very tough decisions. It sounds to me like
the companies have given this a lot of thought and that they are willing
to make some tough decisions.

But until we understand the details of their plans, I don't think I'm
going to be able to give you all the answers to your questions today.

Peter.

Q You don't usually talk about which way the wind is blowing on
Capitol Hill. What leads you to say -- make a comment that support for
this is a mystery?

MS. PERINO: Well, I just, I think that it is. Could anybody here tell
me how Capitol Hill is actually going to react to the plans that they
put forward? I don't think anybody knows.

Q Well, you usually don't talk about the mood up there.

MS. PERINO: Really?

Q What are you telling -- what is the administration telling its --
telling Republicans about this whole idea of the $34 billion?

MS. PERINO: Well, as I said, we need a chance to look through the
plans, Peter, so I don't think that we can -- I can answer that for you
right now.

Q You're not sending any signals on this yet at all?

MS. PERINO: As far as I know, no, but I think that if anybody were to
ask us, our subject matter experts, for their opinion, that they'll
provide it, but I don't know if we would do that in advance of the -- do
that publically in advance of the testimony.

John.

Q Are there particular areas of their proposals where you have more
questions than in other areas, like legacy costs?

MS. PERINO: I don't know. Our experts -- Keith Hennessey, Eddie Lazear
and his team -- they're looking at all of this and they know what to
look for better than I do, but once they have a little bit more I could
see if there's something I can provide.

Anything else on autos?

Q Yes.

MS. PERINO: Jon.

Q I have a quick one. Are you on the same page as the Speaker, who
said that bankruptcy for these companies is not an option?

MS. PERINO: I think what I just said is that we have said that we want
to try to help these companies and we laid -- put forward a path for us
to be able to do so. And -- but we're going to have to -- we would only
do so if the companies can prove viability. And that's the question
right now -- whether or not these plans would provide for long-term
viability -- and that's just something I can't answer for you right now
today.

Q It does sound like the viability premise would leave room for
allowing them to fail. I mean, logic would sort of --

MS. PERINO: I'm just not going to speculate. Let us take a look at the
plans and let them have their testimony and see if we can help them. We
don't want anybody to be negatively affected by a bankruptcy, but
sometimes companies do fail. That's just the way it is in our system.
We've put forward a path that we think could get bipartisan support.
Let's just see what transpires over the next three days. We're not
going to answer this today.

Q Dana, how extensive is the material the automakers provided you
all? I mean, how long does it take to go through it?

MS. PERINO: I don't know, Ed. I haven't seen them. I've had a few
other things to do, but you wouldn't want me looking at them anyway
because I couldn't tell you.

Q No, but do you know?

MS. PERINO: No, I don't know. I think they're pretty thorough, but
that's just a guess, given the report that I heard this morning.

Olivier.

Q Dana, does the White House support India's call for Pakistan to
extradite Lashkar-e-Taiba leaders (inaudible)?

MS. PERINO: I'm going to let Secretary Rice, who is there in the
region, and Admiral Mullen, who is either headed there or -- well, he's
in the region; I don't know if he's in Delhi yet -- let them report back
to the President before I would comment on that. But they're in the
region at the request of the President to express solidarity and our
condolences. Obviously six American citizens were killed and many
others were negatively affected. So this feels a little bit different
to us and we expect that Pakistan would cooperate fully, transparently,
and follow this to its conclusion. But I don't think that I can
presuppose what they're going to come back and tell the President.

Q Okay. Then I've got a bunch of Pakistan for you. The WMD
Commission came back and said basically that Pakistan sits closest to
the intersection of nuclear weapons and Islamist terrorism. Do you
agree with that characterization?

MS. PERINO: I have no reason to disagree with it.

Q Okay. And finally, one of the striking things about the report is
how many times it says that actually the U.S. margin of safety from WMD
terrorism is shrinking, and has shrunk, over the past eight years -- not
increased. Do you share that view, as well?

MS. PERINO: Well, the President is meeting with them right now. I
think that one of the things that he will be able to talk to them about
is -- and the report affirms this -- which is that we have done a lot in
the past seven and a half years, and we've built a really strong
foundation for the next team to be able to come onboard and continue
that.

We think that there is more to do. Our highest priority is to prevent
an attack on American citizens, to prevent weapons of mass destruction
from being used here in our country and around the world. That's why we
have the proliferation initiatives that we have -- the nonproliferation
initiatives that we have been working on with many other countries --
PSI, as it's called.

We recognize that there is more to do, but what we have done is provided
a really good foundation for the next team to be able to take that on
and continue to try to keep us safe.

Q Any plans for any legislative proposals, administrative
restructuring, anything like that in response to the WMD Commission
report?

MS. PERINO: Oh, not that I'm aware of -- at least certainly not under
our administration. I think that we would make sure that the
President-elect's team is fully briefed and then if they decide they
want to move forward when they have their team together, I think that
they could do that. But I don't even know if in the report they suggest
that, so I'll have to defer.

Kathleen.

Q Has the President received and is he considering the request from
Senator Dick Durbin to commute the sentence of the 74-year-old former
Governor of Illinois George Ryan as an act of compassion and mercy? And
also, can you share with us the President's thought process on this kind
of thing, what types of criteria he uses when deciding whether to grant
a pardon, commutation, or clemency? And where does the process stand?
Is he considering any more of those?

MS. PERINO: Well, I can tell you that we have received the request from
Senator Durbin, but I would not comment on the pardon process -- except
for to say that anyone who is eligible for a pardon can apply for one,
and those requests go through our pardon attorney, which is at the
Justice Department. And the President just pardoned I think 14 people
right before Thanksgiving. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more
before he leaves office, but I couldn't tell you how many and I
certainly couldn't tell you who.

Q Dana.

MS. PERINO: I'm going to go back here just real quick.

Q Dana, the GAO, as you know, issued its latest -- its first audit,
actually, on the financial recovery plan and it's very concerned about
what appears to be a lack of oversight -- that banks are taking money
and not tracking what they're using the money for, or may not in the
future. And there doesn't seem to be any wheels on this thing or any
oversight. What is the White House position on that?

MS. PERINO: Well, the report summarizes Treasury's progress in
implementing the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and I think it's
important to remember that that report was drafted before 60 days had
even passed since the legislation actually made it through Congress and
was signed by the President. So the Treasury Department actually agreed
with most of the recommendations in that report and have been
implementing them, and they will continue to do so. They've made
significant progress on building the infrastructure to safeguard the
taxpayers and make sure that the institutions are doing what they
committed to do. And we will just make sure that we continue to build
out that infrastructure, take those recommendations on board, and do
what we can.

Q On Mumbai, about Admiral Mullen and Secretary Rice's visits, are
they basically trying to manage this combustible relationship between
Pakistan and India and trying to make sure that this thing does not
escalate out of hand?

MS. PERINO: Well, we certainly have over the past seven years -- if you
remember in 2001, we had a similar situation where India and Pakistan
tensions had increased dramatically. We have something called a
composite dialogue which we have tried to use to help the two countries
establish open lines of communication, which they have been using over
the past week, which is something that they didn't have just a few years
ago.

So we're continuing to try to help them have open lines of
communication. The Pakistanis have said to the Indians that they will
cooperate and that they will participate in the investigation. We think
that that's positive.

One of the reasons that the President wanted Secretary Rice and Admiral
Mullen to go to the region was of course to help reduce tensions, which
is our goal, but to also thank our Ambassador and our Consul General,
who have done amazing work to try to help the American citizens
negatively affected by these attacks, and also to express our
condolences to the Indians and our solidarity with the Indians. We have
really worked hard on both relationships, bilaterally and then
multilaterally in the region, to try to help everyone realize that the
common enemy is the terrorists, and it's an enemy not just for India and
not just for Pakistan, not just for the United States, but for all of
civilization. And that's the message that they're taking today. I
expect when they get back they'll be able to provide an update to the
President. And then we'll update you from there.

Okay, Les.

Q Thank you, Dana.

MS. PERINO: And then I'll go Helen.

Q Two questions. Two hundred of Israel's rabbis and other Israeli
leaders, including generals, petitioned the President concerning the
very serious health condition, in his 23rd year in prison, of Jonathan
Pollard. And they asked the President to give him clemency. I'm
wondering, does the President -- he is aware of this, and what is the
reaction?

MS. PERINO: The President is well aware of the request to pardon -- or
commute the sentence of Jonathan Pollard, but as I said to Kathleen, I'm
not able to comment on where those things stand. I just -- it's a
private matter for the President and if and when there would be an
action that the President would take, then we would let you know.

Q Thank you. Bloomberg reports that Professor Igor Panarin of
Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has forecast that because of the
financial crisis, the United States will break into six parts. What is
the White House reaction to this? (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: Ed Chen is as puzzled as I am, so I think I'll have to
decline to comment.

Q I had a poker face. (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: Helen, did you have a question?

Q Yes. Is the President going to sign the anti-cluster bomb treaty?
Apparently this is --

MS. PERINO: Right, this is a treaty that was passed out of the U.N.
Security Council several months ago. We said then that, no, we would
not be signing on to it. And so I think that the signing is actually --
we did not participate in the passage of it, and therefore we're not
going to sign it either.

Q Why not?

MS. PERINO: What I have forgotten is all the reasons why, and so I'll
get it for you. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you. One other question.

MS. PERINO: Oh, okay.

Q Do you have any -- do you see any linkage between the Pakistani
government and the so-called terrorists?

MS. PERINO: Secretary Rice today in the region said that she would
decline to comment before the investigation has some time to reach more
conclusions. What we -- some of the things that we do know about
individuals coming from Pakistan are more well known, but I don't think
that anybody is making a direct link to state sponsor. But she said
that we should decline to comment until the investigation has some more
time to play itself out.